As we understand the topics TODAY. Very arrogant to believe we have everything figured out. How long ago was it we thought animals were related, until genetics proved how wrong we were about quite a few mammals?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
The problem with your last argument is that you assume the person helping you interpret the Bible understands it better than you do. Generally, the other people interpretting it only have a better understanding of the historical reasons behind some things that are ordained in the bible and the reasoning behind actions: they cannot tell you exactly what GOD meant any better than you figure for yourself. They may say that they can, but generally someone else has told them what to think before they got to you, so they’re guessing as well. Also, there’s no way of knowing if the people who wrote the bible got it right. They certainly got a few things wrong (concerning the way the universe works). We can’t know for sure what spiritual things they got wrong. To say we can is a lie.[/quote]
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
The Holy Ghost was such a kidder right?
[/quote]
No, women are not to be in the priesthood and women are to wear veils to Mass or Divine Liturgy.[/quote]
Can you provide any reasonable argument why women aren’t suitable for the priesthood and must wear uniforms to pray where as men do not? WITHOUT using the excuse that it is the word of god and without insulting women?[/quote]
Yes, but first answer me this (it pertains to the answer I’ll give), when did I say women have to wear uniforms to pray?[/quote]
“women are to wear veils to mass or Divine Liturgy” when a it is required of a people to wear a particular piece or pieces of clothing in order for them to engage in a social act (work, etc.,) that I’d qualify as a uniform. Do you disagree? I suppose my question is, why do women have to wear a certain piece of clothing in order for their prayers to count as men’s do?[/quote]
As I see the veil it is not a specific piece of clothing, it can be a hat, it can be a piece of cloth (scarf, bonnet, mantilla,), it is just something that covers the head. The veil has nothing to do with men. I see the veil has to do with G-d and having modesty in his Presence.
However, men are not getting out of anything either, in this commandment to the Corinthians men are required to uncover their heads in the presence of the Lord. For a man to uncover his head in the presence of Lord is serious business. Christianity being oriental has the custom of covering your head in the presence of the Lord, so for a man to take off his hat in the presence of the Lord, as I said is serious business.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]
Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]
I note that we start life biologically female, and laugh at your arrogance. You can’t have the ultimate creator feminine, that would just be atrocious.[/quote]
What are you talking about? My arrogance? And, I didn’t say the creator was feminine, I said masculine…please explain.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you fucking high? You wrote all that, most of which is some permutation or the other of a first cause? In an eternal universe, there is no first cause. Now what?[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t Thomas Aquinas did. As is evident to me, in the real world there is no eternal universe, and there is a first cause. Now what?
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
God is without a sex, as I understand Him. You can use She if you prefer, I really do not care.
[/quote]
Actually this is incorrect. Well, I am not saying anything on the part you don’t care, but that we can say G-d is a She. G-d is masculine, that is why G-d is referred to in the masculine. Humans and creation are feminine (like Eve from Adam, and the Church from Christ) in nature.[/quote]
I have a question: If woman was created from man, why do human males have far less DNA than females? From a scientific perspective, if women were created from men they should have as much DNA or less than men do. Instead, they have a lot more.[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
All I’m saying is that we can’t know for sure either way.
[/quote]
This has always been the truth. I just choose, based on evidence (Not cold hard proof) to believe in the Son of God, and the Scriptures that he has revealed.[/quote]
Why do you believe Christian scriptures as opposed to those from other sources? Why about them is more convincing that of the Mormons, Buddhism, Jainism, or any other religion to date?
Kneed -Just because science doesn’t know the answer to something doesnt mean that you can automatically say that the bible has the answer. There are many things we used to assume had a spiritual answer because we didn’t understand it completely- for example, rainbows. Also, the Egyptians used to believe that snakes and birds were all female becaus ethey didnt realze that their male sexual orgwns were inside of them, and believed that because of this they had powers. You simply cant validate an idea simply because another idea is wrong.
I agree with you that if someone thoroughly believes evolution to the point of faith, they would be lying to themselves about missing inofrmation and simply lack of evidence at this point and time. But because someone makes that mistake, it doesnt justify the mistake of saying that you have as much evidence as to the existance of god as science does about evolution. The truth is, i have seen evolution and manipulated genes n the microscale. New species have evolved in your time. This means that although we can’t completely say we know everything about it, we know that the process does exist because we’ve seen it with our eyes and played with it. You cannot say with the same certainty that god exists; all you can say is that you don’t know of another explanation at this time so you’re going with that one.
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma lead to the conclusion that the bible is a better source for spiritual information than any of the thousands of other works created describing numerous supernatural powers?
Also, because of the way our brain conceives of the world through dichotomies, several explanations about existance are not conceptually friendly. In other words, we have majors problems with the idea of existance and nonexistance being opposite ends of the same thing which could have existed forever.
Note, I’m not saying thats the answer, i’m just saying that if it was, it’d be much more difficult to conceptualize than a start and a finish.
So if women are made in man’s image, and men are made in god’s image, who are those born with both sexes made in the image of? What about those without sex and hermaphrodites? Where do they come from?
God has roles for men and women but he doesnt mention those with both sexes and no sex in the bible. How should those people act? Why didnt god mention them?
Zeb- even if you had the best bible teacher in the world, you would run into the same problem of them getting their information from someone else, and the fact that even if their sources are beyond question, we still have to question those who wrote the bible’s accuracy as to the interpretation of what god said, which is impossible to do. And because they have been shown to be unreliable about certain explanations, it’s impossible to say for sure that what the bible has to say about god is accurate, even if interpretted correctly.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Zeb- even if you had the best bible teacher in the world, you would run into the same problem of them getting their information from someone else, and the fact that even if their sources are beyond question, [/quote]
Not really as they are able to read the scriptures for themselves. What having a good teacher does is simply point you in the proper direction. No one person has all the answers, and as we both know “man” is fallible. But why would that dissuade you (or anyone) from following a spiritual path? I hope you’re not throwing your hands in the air and saying since no one is perfect there is no hope. There is great wisdom in the Bible which can be read by any one at any time. Again, all a good teacher does is steer you in the right direction.
The Bible is actually more “accurate” than any other ancient writing. Not many realize this.
I love T Nation, where else can you find 20 year old experts? [/quote]
Yup. It’s the same place you find 50 something year old pseudo-experts. I thought it was just me where you couldn’t refrain from the ad hominem and other fallacious arguments. [/quote]
BG you are the biggest clown on this site bar none. I’ve seen you attack people for no reason on a regular basis. You rarely make sense or draw logical conclusions. Basically you’re a fraud of the highest order (as I told you weeks ago). If you don’t like my posts refrain from reading them. I try not to respond to your stupidity. I usually don’t even read your posts because you add NOTHING to this site. From this point forward I’ll put you on ignore so that I’m not even tempted to read your retort (as there is always a retort – Right Mr. last word?)I’ll leave you with a final idea - go back to the sex thread where you came from and tutor people on how to make porno. After all isn’t that what you’re known for? A 45 year old guy who likes to teach 20 somethings how to make porno - Nice!
Really go crawl back under your rock I cannot think of even one person who will miss you around here.
Zeb
[/quote]
The only fraud here is you. Do I need to remind everyone here about how you found Christ after your felony problems? Typical hypocrite. Stay on topic. And the topic now is your customary ad hominen attack on someone here and when it’s turned back on you you throw a fucking hissy fit like above.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Are you fucking high? You wrote all that, most of which is some permutation or the other of a first cause? In an eternal universe, there is no first cause. Now what?[/quote]
Actually, I didn’t Thomas Aquinas did. As is evident to me, in the real world there is no eternal universe, and there is a first cause. Now what?
And, eternal universe begs the question.[/quote]
“Az is evident to you” is quite irrelevant until such time you experience other dimensions, quantum fluctuations and all the other physical strangeness of the universe you cannot grok. Eternal begs no question - it just “is”…as it is beyond your ability to grok b/c you fall right back into the paradox of your experience with time.
I never said the Bible provides all the answers. Thanks for reading so far into a post that you place words and ideas in my mind and out my mouth. Thank you for that.
Read these words Olee, in the experiences I have had and the things I have done in this life. Without question do I know who was the organizer of it all.
Why waste my time in trying to convince you of something you so adamantly oppose? Would you ever change your mind?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Kneed -Just because science doesn’t know the answer to something doesnt mean that you can automatically say that the bible has the answer. There are many things we used to assume had a spiritual answer because we didn’t understand it completely- for example, rainbows. Also, the Egyptians used to believe that snakes and birds were all female becaus ethey didnt realze that their male sexual orgwns were inside of them, and believed that because of this they had powers. You simply cant validate an idea simply because another idea is wrong.
I agree with you that if someone thoroughly believes evolution to the point of faith, they would be lying to themselves about missing inofrmation and simply lack of evidence at this point and time. But because someone makes that mistake, it doesnt justify the mistake of saying that you have as much evidence as to the existance of god as science does about evolution. The truth is, i have seen evolution and manipulated genes n the microscale. New species have evolved in your time. This means that although we can’t completely say we know everything about it, we know that the process does exist because we’ve seen it with our eyes and played with it. You cannot say with the same certainty that god exists; all you can say is that you don’t know of another explanation at this time so you’re going with that one.
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma lead to the conclusion that the bible is a better source for spiritual information than any of the thousands of other works created describing numerous supernatural powers?
Also, because of the way our brain conceives of the world through dichotomies, several explanations about existance are not conceptually friendly. In other words, we have majors problems with the idea of existance and nonexistance being opposite ends of the same thing which could have existed forever.
Note, I’m not saying thats the answer, i’m just saying that if it was, it’d be much more difficult to conceptualize than a start and a finish.[/quote]
ZEB: You claim I speak as if I don’t understand the bible, as if it is a specific formula with a correct answer. Is there an objective understanding of the bible? I thought each person has the right to their own interpretation of the scripture? And this is the last time I’ll bring it up but why the need to refer to God as He? Why not simply state God is this or that instead of He is this or that? And I don’t really think I need a ‘quality source’ to back up the fact that one would assume due to this framing of narrative that men are supposedly closer to god than women, for what other reason would male tense be used?
[quote]Mackk wrote:
ZEB: You claim I speak as if I don’t understand the bible,[/quote]
Judging only from the few posts that we’ve had I don’t feel that you have a very good understanding of the Bible. I am not claiming that you have not read it. The first few times that I read the Bible I can honestly tell you that I didn’t understand quite a lot of what I read. And even though I have been reading it for years now there are still many things that I have a difficult time grasping. But once a point is grasped I look back and shake my head and wonder why I didn’t get it sooner. It’s a very deep rich book. For example the coming of Jesus Christ is predicted in the Old Testament over 300 Times! The first time around I didn’t even see one of them. That of course is only one example of what I’m talking about.
The problem with this forum is that it gives atheists/agnostics a chance to tear down what they don’t really understand, and never took the time to understand. You have frauds who prowl the forum and copy and paste a few lines from something they read on an anti-Christian site and they want to be taken seriously. When in reality all they’re doing is cruising for attention and an Internet fight. And that gets under my skin as you can probably tell. Sort of like a guy looking through the glass of a mixed martial arts studio and saying, “I could kick his ass” without ever fully understanding exactly what an mma fighter does, or could do to him.
First you really have to understand what you are reading in its full breadth and depth and within context. I am not claiming that all atheists have never read the Bible. But what I’ve found is that most atheists/agnostics are young males who have not even read the book (or very little of it). And how much respect do they deserve when they come out swinging? Again, I am not saying that this is you.
That is a very valid point that you raise and I agree with it. However, if someone is making a claim that they have read and understand the Bible then there would be certain key comments that they would not make. And well, you’ve made a few of them.
It isn’t because men are “closer” to God. And by the way that is one of the statements which reveals to me that you really don’t understand what you’ve read, sorry. There is no where in the Bible which states that men are closer to God than women. Not in any of the 66 books does it say such a thing.
Next point, God obviously chose to reveal Himself to us in the masculine.
I assume it’s because God has the traditional masculine qualities of fatherhood, protection, direction, strength, etc. Metaphors used to describe Him in the Bible include: King, Father, Judge, Husband, Master, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact even the church is referred to as the bride of Christ.
Those referring to God as female are probably not too familiar with the Christian Bible.
[quote]Mackk wrote:
ZEB: You claim I speak as if I don’t understand the bible,[/quote]
Judging only from the few posts that we’ve had I don’t feel that you have a very good understanding of the Bible. I am not claiming that you have not read it. The first few times that I read the Bible I can honestly tell you that I didn’t understand quite a lot of what I read. And even though I have been reading it for years now there are still many things that I have a difficult time grasping. But once a point is grasped I look back and shake my head and wonder why I didn’t get it sooner. It’s a very deep rich book. For example the coming of Jesus Christ is predicted in the Old Testament over 300 Times! The first time around I didn’t even see one of them. That of course is only one example of what I’m talking about.
The problem with this forum is that it gives atheists/agnostics a chance to tear down what they don’t really understand, and never took the time to understand. You have frauds who prowl the forum and copy and paste a few lines from something they read on an anti-Christian site and they want to be taken seriously. When in reality all they’re doing is cruising for attention and an Internet fight. And that gets under my skin as you can probably tell. Sort of like a guy looking through the glass of a mixed martial arts studio and saying, “I could kick his ass” without ever fully understanding exactly what an mma fighter does, or could do to him.
First you really have to understand what you are reading in its full breadth and depth and within context. I am not claiming that all atheists have never read the Bible. But what I’ve found is that most atheists/agnostics are young males who have not even read the book (or very little of it). And how much respect do they deserve when they come out swinging? Again, I am not saying that this is you.
That is a very valid point that you raise and I agree with it. However, if someone is making a claim that they have read and understand the Bible then there would be certain key comments that they would not make. And well, you’ve made a few of them.
It isn’t because men are “closer” to God. And by the way that is one of the statements which reveals to me that you really don’t understand what you’ve read, sorry. There is no where in the Bible which states that men are closer to God than women. Not in any of the 66 books does it say such a thing.
Next point, God obviously chose to reveal Himself to us in the masculine.
I assume it’s because God has the traditional masculine qualities of fatherhood, protection, direction, strength, etc. Metaphors used to describe Him in the Bible include: King, Father, Judge, Husband, Master, and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. In fact even the church is referred to as the bride of Christ.
Those referring to God as female are probably not too familiar with the Christian Bible.
[/quote]
I do actually appreciate you actually answering the questions, I have one more though. Are you arguing that there is no preferred sex of god in theory (as per the bible) or in practice (as per organized religion)?
As I said, I don’t have a problem with not wanting to change my mind; for me to even be asking for proof as to the validity of what you’re saying, I had to change my mind.
The question is, would you be willing to change your’s if the evidence was stacked against you? It seems to me that you wouldn’t. You would find some way of continuing regardless because your belief has nothing to do with anything other than faith; and giving up faith would be a sign of weak faith, which is terrible.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
I never said the Bible provides all the answers. Thanks for reading so far into a post that you place words and ideas in my mind and out my mouth. Thank you for that.
Read these words Olee, in the experiences I have had and the things I have done in this life. Without question do I know who was the organizer of it all.
Why waste my time in trying to convince you of something you so adamantly oppose? Would you ever change your mind?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Kneed -Just because science doesn’t know the answer to something doesnt mean that you can automatically say that the bible has the answer. There are many things we used to assume had a spiritual answer because we didn’t understand it completely- for example, rainbows. Also, the Egyptians used to believe that snakes and birds were all female becaus ethey didnt realze that their male sexual orgwns were inside of them, and believed that because of this they had powers. You simply cant validate an idea simply because another idea is wrong.
I agree with you that if someone thoroughly believes evolution to the point of faith, they would be lying to themselves about missing inofrmation and simply lack of evidence at this point and time. But because someone makes that mistake, it doesnt justify the mistake of saying that you have as much evidence as to the existance of god as science does about evolution. The truth is, i have seen evolution and manipulated genes n the microscale. New species have evolved in your time. This means that although we can’t completely say we know everything about it, we know that the process does exist because we’ve seen it with our eyes and played with it. You cannot say with the same certainty that god exists; all you can say is that you don’t know of another explanation at this time so you’re going with that one.
Brother Chris- How does the trilemma lead to the conclusion that the bible is a better source for spiritual information than any of the thousands of other works created describing numerous supernatural powers?
Also, because of the way our brain conceives of the world through dichotomies, several explanations about existance are not conceptually friendly. In other words, we have majors problems with the idea of existance and nonexistance being opposite ends of the same thing which could have existed forever.
Note, I’m not saying thats the answer, i’m just saying that if it was, it’d be much more difficult to conceptualize than a start and a finish.[/quote]
[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Zeb- even if you had the best bible teacher in the world, you would run into the same problem of them getting their information from someone else, and the fact that even if their sources are beyond question, [/quote]
Not really as they are able to read the scriptures for themselves. What having a good teacher does is simply point you in the proper direction. No one person has all the answers, and as we both know “man” is fallible. But why would that dissuade you (or anyone) from following a spiritual path? I hope you’re not throwing your hands in the air and saying since no one is perfect there is no hope. There is great wisdom in the Bible which can be read by any one at any time. Again, all a good teacher does is steer you in the right direction.
The Bible is actually more “accurate” than any other ancient writing. Not many realize this.
As I’ve already said anything can be attacked. But I found this information very interesting I hope you do too.
[/quote]
That site didn’t say it was more accurate than any other historical writing; it stated that it was more accurate than numerous GREEK writings. That’s by no means an all-inclusive list. In fact, the article didn’t say anything about a comparison to any other culture’s historical documents and when they were penned.
This still doesn’t alleviate the problem of spiritual accuracy of the writers, who were not accurate about the workings of the universe.
Also, here is something fun for you to read. I honestly think you’ll find this enjoyable: Egypt Revisited - Google Books Basically, it summerizes, why, although older in age, you hear less about Egyptian texts.
Secondly, an extremely old (older than what you presented) text written as a spiritual guide by those that outdated the sources you posted by 2,500 years:
Just some fun reading for those who want to know more about ancient religions and how religion itself has evolved over time. All of these and the links above are scholarly, not religious: